1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 

MEMO

TO: AWE Work Group 

FROM: John Mauro, SC&A

DATE: September 4, 2012 

SUBJECT: DuPont Deepwater Works Issues Matrix 

 

Attached is the DuPont Deepwater Works Issues Matrix that was provided to the AWE Work 

Group in a memo dated August 15, 2011, along with issues matrices for several AWE sites. No 

responses or updates have been received on the DuPont Issues Matrix since that date. 
DuPont Deepwater Works Issues Matrix 2 SC&A –August 15, 2011

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution.

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

DuPont Deepwater Works Issues Matrix 

Finding or 

Observation SC&A Reviewa NIOSH Initial Response Work Group Position Based on NIOSH Response

Finding 1 The site profile should discuss the degree 

to which the air sampling data, which was 

collected in 1944 and 1945, can be used to 

reasonably bound doses in the earlier years 

of operation (e.g., 1942–1943).

Finding 2 We would request that the site profile 

discuss the levels of surface contamination 

at the facility and explain that, at these 

levels, the default ingestion rate of 

0.5 mg/day, which is inherent to OCASTIB-009, applies to this facility. NIOSH 

should also describe how the ingestion 

intake in Table 1 was calculated.

Finding 3 It appears that uranium metal was produced 

at the site using the UF4 to U magnesium 

bomb reduction process, which, because of 

the Putzier effect, could have produced 

uranium ingots that were associated with 

external beta radiation fields that were 10 

to 20 times greater than those adopted in 

the site profile.

Finding 4 There seems to be a substantial disparity 

between the explanation of how the annual 

photon doses to operators were derived and 

the actual values employed in the site 

profile.

Finding 5 There seems to be a substantial disparity 

between the explanation of how the annual 

contact doses to operators were derived and 

the actual values employed in the site 

profile. In addition, justification should be 

provided as to why TBD-6000 default 

values should not be used at DuPont since 

no site data is available for external 

exposure during the operating period.

Finding 6 Assuming 50% of the beta/gamma dose 

rate measured at 3 ft from a surface is 50% 

from gamma and 50% from beta does not 

appear to be appropriate. In addition, beta 

dose cannot contribute significantly to 

whole-body dose.

Finding 7 The development of the photon dose is 

convoluted and not scientifically sound. A 

simpler approach would be to assume the 

deep dose rate was 0.05 mrad/hr, based on 

measurements at 3 ft from contaminated 

surfaces, and pro-rate this dose rate 

between beta and gamma based on 

Table 3.10 of TBD-6000.

a – SC&A 2011. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ, SCA-TR-SP2011-0035, 

Rev. 0. SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia. August 12, 2011.

OCAS 2004. Estimation of Ingestion Intakes. OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0. National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety 

(NIOSH), Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2004.